CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)

[NST]

Not sure if anyone has covered the article from the telegraph stating that covid 19 may not have originated from China

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2020/07/coron...

If this is true that changes the story somewhat!

[anonymous-user]

NST said:

Not sure if anyone has covered the article from the telegraph stating that covid 19 may not have originated from China

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2020/07/coron...

If this is true that changes the story somewhat!

I thought the sewage sample theory had been debunked due to contaminated samples?

[lemmingjames]

sambucket said:

Ok here is a loony prediction for you, that you are welcome to quote. Measured from this date forward, over the next 12 months, England will have the longest period of social distancing in Europe, the longest hospital waiting lists, the worst cancer detection rates, the worst PISA scores, the most excess deaths, the largest second wave in winter, the lowest mask use, the worst hit economy, the most travel blacklists, and the steepest rise in anti vax sentiment.

And the second prediction is this thread will blame all this on lockdown.

Why England and not Scotland or the whole of the UK?

[pquinn]

NST said:

Not sure if anyone has covered the article from the telegraph stating that covid 19 may not have originated from China

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2020/07/coron...

If this is true that changes the story somewhat!

Seems unlikely - just because you (maybe) detected it somewhere else earlier than you expected doesn't mean it didn't start in China where the related diseases are from.

A generous read would see this as over-interpretation and a publicity grab. Others might see the campaign by China to spread the blame to anyone but them.

[bodhi]

garyhun said:

NST said:

Not sure if anyone has covered the article from the telegraph stating that covid 19 may not have originated from China

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2020/07/coron...

If this is true that changes the story somewhat!

I thought the sewage sample theory had been debunked due to contaminated samples?

I'm fairly certain the detection of it in waste water from Barcelona in March 2019 had been, not too sure on the others.

However of bigger concern to me with that theory is assuming that the detection of the first cluster in Hubei is when the Chinese Government told us it was. Seems to be putting a bit more faith in the transparency of the CCP than they warrant imo.

[captain_cynic]

markyb_lcy said:

"lockdown" did "work" especially for it's initially stated aims of protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed.

The real question I find interesting is considering if a less strict version of lockdown (or basked of NPIs - possibly more advisory and less legislative) would have had a similar (or "good enough" effect).

If course, we can never *really* know, but the results from Sweden suggest it is possible.

We only have to look at the countries that didn't lockdown to answer that.

And I mean countries like The US, Russia and Brazil. Sweden is a bad example because if the Swedish government tells the Swedish people that they should self isolate, the Swedish people will do so out of their own volition.

That would never have worked in the UK because most Brits have a healthy distrust of the government. We even have a non insignificant number of paranoid anti-govt delusionals. In that regard we are much closer to the Americans than the Swedes. Enough people ignored the lockdown as it was so I don't think being more "advisory" would have worked. The govt needed to set a serious tone by example.

Now I'll be the first to admit it wasn't perfect but it did work. The lockdown wasn't nearly as bad as the chicken littles on this thread made out. As the US and Brazil demonstrated, lockdown or no, the economic damage happened anyway. The difference is that now, the UK is in a position to start recovering where as because Trump and Bolosnaro played politics instead of listening to medical professionals, they are not in any position to recover, in fact they are now looking at months of lockdowns which will cause even more damage.

Now that the virus is largely under control, the government has been confused, contradictory and in many cases, pants on head retarded. It's clear they've stopped listening to experts. Fortunately any economic recovery will be lead by workers and businesses, not the government.

[markyb_lcy]

captain_cynic said:

And I mean countries like The US, Russia and Brazil. Sweden is a bad example because if the Swedish government tells the Swedish people that they should self isolate, the Swedish people will do so out of their own volition.

That would never have worked in the UK because most Brits have a healthy distrust of the government. We even have a non insignificant number of paranoid anti-govt delusionals. In that regard we are much closer to the Americans than the Swedes. Enough people ignored the lockdown as it was so I don't think being more "advisory" would have worked. The govt needed to set a serious tone by example.

I agree with a lot of your reply (that I didn't quote) however I don't buy this above.

Sweden has plenty of history of anti-governmental action (see 2018 election for a recent example) and I see no reason why they are "special" in this regard. Many people are quick to point out how anti-govt the brits are, but there's really no evidence for it. In fact, in terms of compliance levels with the measures that were enacted, many more than was expected or needed to complied.

Most anecdotal "expert" opinion suggested at the height, upto 90% of people were complying. The (now largely debunked) modelling used to inform measures only expected and required approx 75%+ compliance.

It's difficult to say whether compliance levels would have been the same with a softer (less legislative) approach, but it is IMO something we should consider when we ask ourselves whether the lockdown enacted was needed (in its exact form) and proportionate to the aims.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Tuesday 7th July 14:29

[bodhi]

captain_cynic said:

We only have to look at the countries that didn't lockdown to answer that.

And I mean countries like The US, Russia and Brazil. Sweden is a bad example because if the Swedish government tells the Swedish people that they should self isolate, the Swedish people will do so out of their own volition.

That would never have worked in the UK because most Brits have a healthy distrust of the government. We even have a non insignificant number of paranoid anti-govt delusionals. In that regard we are much closer to the Americans than the Swedes. Enough people ignored the lockdown as it was so I don't think being more "advisory" would have worked. The govt needed to set a serious tone by example.

Now I'll be the first to admit it wasn't perfect but it did work. The lockdown wasn't nearly as bad as the chicken littles on this thread made out. As the US and Brazil demonstrated, lockdown or no, the economic damage happened anyway. The difference is that now, the UK is in a position to start recovering where as because Trump and Bolosnaro played politics instead of listening to medical professionals, they are not in any position to recover, in fact they are now looking at months of lockdowns which will cause even more damage.

Now that the virus is largely under control, the government has been confused, contradictory and in many cases, pants on head retarded. It's clear they've stopped listening to experts. Fortunately any economic recovery will be lead by workers and businesses, not the government.

The US did lock down though? They may have called it a "Stay at Home Order" but it was still, to all intents and purposes, a lockdown. Granted different states had different approaches, but there is very little correlation between severity of outcome and how strict the lockdown was. If anything, those States with the hardest lockdowns - NY, NJ, Penn etc, had the worst outcomes.

[BevR]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Frightened people were encouraged not to analyse or read the science for themselves but just say shout at people "Stay at HOME!"

Not disagreeing with any of your post but I did not notice any of this at the time, do you have any examples?

[markyb_lcy]

This is an interesting one, HMRC are to treat employer-provided CV19 tests as "benefit-in-kind"...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53324101

I see this as wholly unfair especially if one is required to have a test or regular tests in order to return to or stay in work. Hopefully the govt will fix this pronto.

[jamoor]

markyb_lcy said:

This is an interesting one, HMRC are to treat employer-provided CV19 tests as "benefit-in-kind"...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53324101

I see this as wholly unfair especially if one is required to have a test or regular tests in order to return to or stay in work. Hopefully the govt will fix this pronto.

Looks like a computer says no situation to me that will be fixed quickly.

[Andy888]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yep, exactly. Like this, not that far away from me.

"Coronavirus: 'Up to 16 affected' in County Down clusters"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-533...

Clearly zero cases is the only acceptable position then.

Heaven forbid "up to 16 people" may have it. Not died, not hospitalised, just have it. Local coffee shops have now closed in sympathy.

[EddieSteadyGo]

BevR said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Frightened people were encouraged not to analyse or read the science for themselves but just say shout at people "Stay at HOME!"

Not disagreeing with any of your post but I did not notice any of this at the time, do you have any examples?

There are *so* many examples. Have a read through the covid related threads here going back to April as a starting point and you will find plenty!

[Twinfan]

So the majority of people currently testing positive for COVID-19 have no symptoms:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

Is it just me, or is the article making a big leap and suggesting the pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic transmission is a huge problem? I thought it was "very rare" according to the WHO:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52977940

Or have a missed something in the last month? I would just assume that the lack of symptoms means they have a very low viral load and their body is killing it off before it takes hold, and therefore onwards transmission would be very low risk to others.

[Ahonen]

Elysium said:

Another excellent twitter thread on Sweden:

https://twitter.com/HaraldofW/status/1280383235604...

This is superb. A really good eye opener.

This certainly backs up the German scientific paper from a few weeks ago which concluded that almost all the people in Germany who'd died with it were going to die this year anyway, that there was probably a massive overreaction and that really everyone should just start getting on with things now.

[panholio]

Twinfan said:

So the majority of people currently testing positive for COVID-19 have no symptoms:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

Is it just me, or is the article making a big leap and suggesting the pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic transmission is a huge problem? I thought it was "very rare" according to the WHO:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52977940

Or have a missed something in the last month? I would just assume that the lack of symptoms means they have a very low viral load and their body is killing it off before it takes hold, and therefore onwards transmission would be very low risk to others.

I thought exactly the same. More poor journalism from the BBC.

[markyb_lcy]

Twinfan said:

So the majority of people currently testing positive for COVID-19 have no symptoms:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

Is it just me, or is the article making a big leap and suggesting the pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic transmission is a huge problem? I thought it was "very rare" according to the WHO:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52977940

Or have a missed something in the last month? I would just assume that the lack of symptoms means they have a very low viral load and their body is killing it off before it takes hold, and therefore onwards transmission would be very low risk to others.

Yes, it is a big leap imo.

Percentage of tests having no symptoms actually says NOTHING about pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic transmission vs symptomatic transmission. All it tells us is that for one reason or another, most tests are being done either without symptoms having been developed or before they do (probably expected if track and trace is sending people for tests). This is actually great news as it means we are catching more asymptomatic cases and we are getting to symptomatic cases (early) before symptoms develop. The outcome should be many more carriers isolating and therefore cutting transmissions generally.

[Twinfan]

Could just be highlighting the false positive rate too?

[markyb_lcy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

One would have to ask the proprietors of those establishments. I think I read that at least one of them was for a "deep-clean" which is entirely at their discretion. Perhaps part of it is marketing ... to be seen to be reactive in order to gain people's trust in the longer (than a day or two) term.

[worsy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-5331...

Tom Hanks says wear a mask.